What About Feminine Theological Language in the Bible?

A while ago I took a [look] at why Christians refer to God using masculine terminology.  Those reasons were threefold:

1. Jesus is described as the image of God.
2. Jesus exclusively told us to relate to God as Father.
3. The metaphysics of how God creates the universe is more like fatherhood.

But of course that doesn't answer every question.  There are a few points people often raise to the contrary.  Today I want to look at one of them....

...aren't there passages of the Bible which say God is a mother too?


Simile, Everyone!

The argument usually begins with a person saying:

"God is referred to as a mother in the Bible too."

Alright... where?

Most of the examples come from the book of Isaiah.  The prophet uses several analogies which compare God to a woman.


God's Impatience is Like...

The first one compares God's impatience and anticipation to a man going into battle and then a woman agonizing in childbirth:

"The Lord goes forth like a mighty man, like a man of war he stirs up his fury; he cries out, he shouts aloud, he shows himself mighty against his foes. For a long time I have kept silent, I have been quiet and held myself back. But now, like a woman in childbirth, I cry out, I gasp and pant." - Isaiah 42:13-14

Note that this does not say God IS a woman in labor.  Rather, the passage likens God's impatience to that of a woman in labor.

One can actually find this comparison used in 9 other places in Scripture.... and none of these are trying to say the referent is actually feminine.  It is like saying:

"After dinner I felt as uncomfortable as a pregnant lady."

God's is More Mindful Than...

The second example assures the Hebrews that God's remembrance of Israel is greater than a mother's care for her own baby:

"But Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me.' 

Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have graven you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me."  - Isaiah 49:14-15

Like the first example, this is not saying God IS a woman feeding her child.  Rather, we are told God's remembrance of Israel is greater than that of a woman feeding her child.

This is similar to a person saying:

"A woman would lose her own baby before that guy would lose his iPhone." 

Comfort in Jerusalem:

Lastly, God promises to comfort the exiled Jews in the city of Jerusalem:

“Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her. For you will nurse and be satisfied at her comforting breasts; you will drink deeply and delight in her overflowing abundance.

For this is what the Lord says: 'I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.'” - Isaiah 66:10-13

 There are two ways of reading this one.

The first way focuses exclusively on verse 13.  That reading suggests God is going to comfort the Jews like the way mother comforts a child.  Pretty straightforward.

That would make it a simile like the others, but one which would admittedly lend itself more directly to thinking of God as a mother. It doesn't go as far as saying God is a mother - or that we should address God as such - but this is as close as Scripture gets you.

However, I don't think that captures the full meaning of the passage.

The second way of reading it draws upon the whole thing.  It begins by saying Jerusalem is a mother with "comforting breasts".  Then God promises to extend peace and wealth to Jerusalem so the people would be comforted there.

Putting it together, God will enable the city of Jerusalem to comfort the Jews like a mother by restoring peace and prosperity to the city.  

Other Identities:

In any event, these analogies could be put alongside other analogies made for God's actions and qualities.  For instance, God is compared to a lion in the book of Hosea:

"They will follow the Lord; He will roar like a lion. When He roars, his children will come trembling from the west." - Hosea 11:10

There is also a passage in the Psalms which says God IS a rock, a fortress, and a shield:

"The Lord is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold." - Psalm 18:2

In both cases we understand that we are dealing with the language of metaphor. They basically say "God does X like a Y."  That is also the way in which the feminine analogies work.  So if God if those passages from Isaiah mean God is a mother, then God is equally a lion, a fortress, and shield.

Direct Descriptions:

All of these examples are completely different from the way Scripture treats the fatherhood of God.  In that case, we're told without qualification that God is "Father" and we should call Him that.  We read:

"He said to them, 'When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come...'" - Luke 11:2

"Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." - Mark 14:36

"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption. And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'" - Romans 8:15 

And there are dozens and dozens more.  The difference is obvious.  Scripture is exclusive in only referring to God directly as “father” and telling us this is the nature of our relationship with the Creator.  


Dangers Ahead:

So the people who think God should also be called “mother” and related to as such are not getting that idea from Scripture.  For most it is a foregone conclusion seeking a justification.   It begins with sexual egalitarianism as the highest truth, and the Christian tradition must be adapted to that ethos.

This leads one into dangerous waters.

The belief that we should refer to God as “mother” is almost always accompanied by the conviction that the New Testament has misled us about the nature of God.  That is to say, one concludes that either Jesus, the Apostles, or their successors had to make their message more palatable to a misogynistic culture and deliberately held something back.

So you’ll hear people say:

“Well you know… the Bible was written by men, was passed down through the hands of men, and assembled by men.  So there is no reason why we should trust it on this issue.  These men clearly would have felt threatened by the idea of God as mother.”

But that attitude is irreconcilable with the way historic Christianity has regarded both God and the Scriptures.  This lead the people who take this stance inevitably into finding themselves alienated from the Church.  Because if one follows the data laid out in Scripture as received by the Church, you get the follow:

• God as our Father.  
• Mary as our Mother.  
• Christ as our eldest brother.  
• Other Christians as our brothers and sisters.  

That makes a family.  And why can't that be enough?